@Olivia P Why do you use the word 'give'? People 'pay' for things they want all the time, roads are no different. Asking "who will build the roads?" is like asking "who will grow the food?" If private companies are able to build skyscrapers and parking lots, I'm pretty sure they can figure out how to build roads. Besides, roads are already built by private companies.
@Olivia P Your sarcastic bitch attitude aside, I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science and always got A's in English. You're in no position to explain anything.
Life is like box of chocolates, banks are allowed to lend chocolate that doesn't have value but you have to pay back with one that has, banks and companies have a veto right to reduce the amount of workchocolate and new released chocolate in to the market if theyre hierarchal position is threatened.
Capitalism is the best system to adopt because we are consenting equals. Equal in a sense that no one can be coerced against his/her will. So the only way for goods and services to be exchanged among equals is by free trade. Socialism presupposes we are not equal. So government must step in and equalize the playing field before trade can occur. But this system presupposes there are classes of people who can be in charge of determining inequality. Thereby perpetuating inequality because those in charge will never be equal to those not in charge.
The whole point of this video is to demonize socialism . This is because a socialist fiscal policy is to tax the corporation. They tax them because they take resources and use the labor force of a country .
@@redwater4778 The history of socialist countries is enough to demonize it. Governments tax people and organizations because it's easier to get their money that way than it is to trade for it.
@@redwater4778 Before income taxes governments got most of their revenue from other taxes, mostly sales taxes and tariffs. What's your point? By the way you were wrong about a socialist tax policy being to tax corporations, under socialism the means of production are nationalized so there either are no corporations or the corporations are all part of the government.
@@padraicburns9278 No. It was corporate tax . There were no foreign cars or TV's in the USA when I was a kid. Therefore no tariffs were collected . Nixon reduced tariffs on Japanese TV's and car because republican capitalists are heavily invested in them . Ford got tariffs reduced when they owned Volvo. All at the expense of American jobs. Reagan lowered corporate taxes so republican capitalists could profit more with the importation of German products . Again at the expense of American jobs. Socialist countries do have high corporate tax . This is why they are CIAed sanctioned embargoed corrupted or outright attacked (Iraq).
Econ major & biggest free market advocate you’ll find here; but, there are massive holes in many of his counterobjections: (1) poor / low IQ people don’t care that their absolute standard of living is empirically higher, they are covetous and care about their *relative* standing in relation to others (2) saying “crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism” is analogous to commies saying the USSR isn’t “real” communism- you have to factor in human nature, the nature of the state, etc., which will always tend to corrupt freer markets into “crony” capitalism (3) poor people often (a) don’t want to work, (b) are mentally incapable of generating a greater income by working than from receiving benefits, and thus it is totally in their rational self interest to maintain the status quo of massive wealth transfers
Do you have sources on (1) and (3)? I think you saying "poor" people is extremely simplistic. Are you talking about EVERYONE below a certain economic threshold? Or are you talking about the underemployed, undereducated? Those that are disabled? Mentally ill? Injured veterans? The old who had their pensions stolen and got back nothing or pennies on the dollar? Just curious what you actually are talking about. I think it's a bit ill-informed to just assume that the poor are low-IQ and lazy, as (1) and (3) pretty clearly show. I THINK with (3) you're talking about what the British call the "dole-hole" but i'm not sure what you mean by "massive wealth transfers". I hope you don't mean the paltry un-employment or benefits checks that these people receive. I'm not trying to be combative, just trying to cover my bases here. Thanks.
Capitalism doesn't exist on the largest macro scales. Corporatism is what we have, an idea with roots in fascism. Capitalistic behavior exists in certain areas, but the overarching paradigm is of state control of every aspect of human behavior, through economic planning and regulation. Government is antithetical to capitalism, and large government is especially antithetical.
true But the corporations (Capitalists) have got they taxes reduced by influencing the government .This has given them advantage over the independent business owner.
@@redwater4778 the proper (and capitalistic) solution is to reduce taxes on the smaller businesses just the same. If a corporation bribes government for lower taxes, only for themselves, and *Also to Keep them At Least as high for the smaller businesses, if not higher* (in order to cut competition from them), that is not capitalism, it is the opposite. That is government intervention - aka Collectivism - coercively creating an artificial disparity that would not otherwise exist. That's cronyism. I don't even like calling cronyism "crony capitalism" because it's outright Not capitalism. It is coercive collectivism. Because it is central control and violent influence over the economy. Calling that capitalism just because it's a *corporation* doing this sort of lobbying, is like if hypothetically, say, Karl Marx had gone against his socialist label, and became a fat cat CEO arguing for free trade and private property markets, and you saw this, and you said "that must be Marxian Communism, because he's the communist Marx himself". That's bullshit. It's antithesis to it. Same with these corporations. That's not an example of a system of capitalism, but its opposite.
nice comparison to regulated building and worst solviet blocks, solviet building were not regulated but centrally planned. A huge difference between regulation and licencing private and centrally planned where there is nobody who would regulate.
I don't like saying "crony Capitalism" because it's conceding linguistic ground to Socialists. It's Corporatism and demonstrably not Capitalism. capitalism /ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/ noun an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Corporations are public, not private, and when the state treats them as an individual under the law it commits the same fallacy of misplaced concreteness that all collectivist regimes commit... and this is barely even touching on the cronyism that is the only accurate part of the phrase "crony Capitalism".
What gets me most about this is this idea "these people who are talking crap about capitalism are not properly defining capitalism" and then many other videos i've seen from Mises go on and do the same thing with Socialism or Communism. I think what the people who aren't "properly defining capitalism" are talking about is the system of capitalism as we see it successfully implemented currently in the markets that are considered capitalist. I'm not a critic of capitalism. I tend to like capitalism, when it drives innovation or even iterative development. But I think it can't be a completely free market. A system that sees profit as it's only motive will find a way to maximize finding/getting that profit, without any regard to ethics or morality. The government is there to serve as the representative of the people, the only entity powerful enough to hold these large corporations to heel if they are operating not in the best interest of the people. Sure- allow the market to operate with a profit motive, but do not look away for a minute, because it will have stolen your wallet and impregnated your wife without you watching it. The government also needs to be transparent to be kept from falling down a similar path. All human endeavors need to be kept honest- checks and balances are absolutely essential.
The point about earning less to get more public services is bunk. About 99% on that level of income never do the math. Earning is directly related to how much your boss tells you to work when you are in a minimum income situation. Having a cell phone is also not a form of wealth. People get cell phone for a few dollars at a swap meet and get a few minutes at a time. Why so they can call 911 to save theirs or another life mostly. Ceos may run bit companies well. But buying back stock to make it look like it went up in value is half the game.
You could not be more wrong about people not doing the math on whether or not they lose benefits based on income. They pay more attention to it than people in upper incomes. Over the years I have had numerous employees go so far as to ask me to take back pay raises because it cost them more in benefits than the gain in income. Many have asked if I could adjust or hide things like tips and bonuses because making more cost them when they went to the doctors' office.. And yes a secondary market for used cell phones, just like used cars, is a sign of wealth. I just bought a used car with more bells and whistles than I could imagine because there is enough wealth to make it possible for someone to trade in a perfectly good car long before it's useful life is over. I benefited from the wealth and it benefited me. Stock buybacks put money back into the economy where it can be put to better use than the company can put it too. If the company had a better use for the money they would put it there.
Your earnings are not directly effected by how much your boss tells you can work unless you are an employee who refuses to more from your current job or start your own business 🙄
At 8:30 he says: ''Today, high earners tend to marry other high earners, if you go back several decades you will find more cases where a high income earner married a low income earner and that's why we have more inequality today.'' Wow, that kind of argument definitively requires a lot of creativity but very little connection to reality... Is he fucking making fun of us? I'm out of here.
Oh, it's just that I tend to take my learning from arguments that make sense, exclusively. Here's one lesson you might like: Capitalism as it is being practiced today is only good if you were born on the right side of it, go ask those who go to sleep almost every night on an empty stomach what they think of it. Here's another one: We are now back to nineteenth century levels in wage disparities, we are regressing. And one last: Are you aware that you owe your 8 hours a day 5 days only work week to anti-predatory capitalism unions? No? Ahhh, go back to school little one and in the meantime, try to avoid talks that make no sense, you'd be much better off. Have a lovely day🌹
Hello Happy Camper, I think it’s not so much that you like to learn from ideas that make sense it’s more that you don’t like your preconceived notions about capitalism being challenged. Your anecdotes about poverty or hunger and the work week are not new to me. There is no inherent conflict between a growing economy and certain provisions or social safety net for the truly indigent. But generally, paying the able-bodied not to work helps no one. The idea that no one can make it unless they’re born on the right side is a demonstratively false assertion. If you have the time or inclination I highly recommend reading Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions” or “ The Vision of the Anointed”. Regards, Capitalist Pig
Ha ha ha, me? A capitalist pig? Come on, be serious a little now. If you're interested in what The Libertarian Platform really was in 1980 and still is today, watch this it's only 4 minutes. Have fun and farewell, little one. ua-cam.com/video/QKGwdXFm6hQ/v-deo.html
Oh boy, I signed it capitalist pig silly. Pay attention to details this might solve some of your issues with free markets. Though I'm not 100% in there camp , I'm quite familiar with the Libertarian viewpoint on economic issues. But thanks anyway.
their is no other kind of capitalism but crony, (well their is putting the corporate organizations in charge, so they use coercive force directly, as Mises argued for) A simple challenge: work for the worst wages, with the longest hours you want to be legal, for 10 years and report back (for a mises professor that would be $0 an hour for 168 hour weeks) accepting no charity or hand outs.
That is incorrect every single time you buy anything you have engaged in capitalism willingly. Nobody would work for $0 for 168 hours a week for 10 years..... They would just get a different job or start up there own company 🙄
What gets me most about this is this idea "these people who are talking crap about capitalism are not properly defining capitalism" and then many other videos i've seen from Mises go on and do the same thing with Socialism or Communism. I think what the people who aren't "properly defining capitalism" are talking about is the system of capitalism as we see it successfully implemented currently in the markets that are considered capitalist. I'm not a critic of capitalism. I tend to like capitalism, when it drives innovation or even iterative development. But I think it can't be a completely free market. A system that sees profit as it's only motive will find a way to maximize finding/getting that profit, without any regard to ethics or morality. The government is there to serve as the representative of the people, the only entity powerful enough to hold these large corporations to heel if they are operating not in the best interest of the people. Sure- allow the market to operate with a profit motive, but do not look away for a minute, because it will have stolen your wallet and impregnated your wife without you watching it. The government also needs to be transparent to be kept from falling down a similar path. All human endeavors need to be kept honest- checks and balances are absolutely essential.
Openness naturally has to come before the checks and balances. Noone can comprehensively predict what the future will bring. If everyone's activities are in the public eye, then checks and balances can be implemented if the need arises. There is nothing wrong with greed being a motivator of innovation. There is a need for affordable housing. Someone designed a machine that 3D prints affordable houses and the profit margin is HUGE. Still a win win. The problems arise from corruption and that can be minimized through disclosure.
Life is like a box of chocolates, they get redistributed to those who didn't earn them.
@Olivia P Why do you use the word 'give'? People 'pay' for things they want all the time, roads are no different. Asking "who will build the roads?" is like asking "who will grow the food?" If private companies are able to build skyscrapers and parking lots, I'm pretty sure they can figure out how to build roads. Besides, roads are already built by private companies.
@Olivia P Your sarcastic bitch attitude aside, I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science and always got A's in English. You're in no position to explain anything.
Life is like box of chocolates, banks are allowed to lend chocolate that doesn't have value but you have to pay back with one that has, banks and companies have a veto right to reduce the amount of workchocolate and new released chocolate in to the market if theyre hierarchal position is threatened.
@@padraicburns9278 Olivia P has left the room 😂 lol
Capitalism is the best system to adopt because we are consenting equals. Equal in a sense that no one can be coerced against his/her will. So the only way for goods and services to be exchanged among equals is by free trade.
Socialism presupposes we are not equal. So government must step in and equalize the playing field before trade can occur. But this system presupposes there are classes of people who can be in charge of determining inequality. Thereby perpetuating inequality because those in charge will never be equal to those not in charge.
The whole point of this video is to demonize socialism . This is because a socialist fiscal policy is to tax the corporation. They tax them because they take resources and use the labor force of a country .
@@redwater4778 The history of socialist countries is enough to demonize it. Governments tax people and organizations because it's easier to get their money that way than it is to trade for it.
@@padraicburns9278 Once there was no personal income tax. So where did the government get revenue ?
@@redwater4778 Before income taxes governments got most of their revenue from other taxes, mostly sales taxes and tariffs. What's your point? By the way you were wrong about a socialist tax policy being to tax corporations, under socialism the means of production are nationalized so there either are no corporations or the corporations are all part of the government.
@@padraicburns9278 No. It was corporate tax . There were no foreign cars or TV's in the USA when I was a kid. Therefore no tariffs were collected .
Nixon reduced tariffs on Japanese TV's and car because republican capitalists are heavily invested in them . Ford got tariffs reduced when they owned Volvo. All at the expense of American jobs.
Reagan lowered corporate taxes so republican capitalists could profit more with the importation of German products . Again at the expense of American jobs.
Socialist countries do have high corporate tax . This is why they are CIAed sanctioned embargoed corrupted or outright attacked (Iraq).
Asked my friend what he thought capitalism was and he said "I thought capitalism was like pick yourself up by your boot straps" 🙄
People have no idea what they're talking about or what they think
😂 I know people like that. 🤦🏻♂️
This is what I'd imagine Forrest Gump would sound like if he was an economist
Didn't Forest Gump become a millionaire?
Good thing you have a sound argument there. I quite like Gump, would be better than most in terms of understanding economics.
There's a bit in the Power Hour episode with Marian Tupy about the whole "Europe does it, so it must be good."
id like to see some charts of how economic prosperity changes over time vs how economic freedom changes over time for a nation.
Econ major & biggest free market advocate you’ll find here; but, there are massive holes in many of his counterobjections:
(1) poor / low IQ people don’t care that their absolute standard of living is empirically higher, they are covetous and care about their *relative* standing in relation to others
(2) saying “crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism” is analogous to commies saying the USSR isn’t “real” communism- you have to factor in human nature, the nature of the state, etc., which will always tend to corrupt freer markets into “crony” capitalism
(3) poor people often (a) don’t want to work, (b) are mentally incapable of generating a greater income by working than from receiving benefits, and thus it is totally in their rational self interest to maintain the status quo of massive wealth transfers
Do you have sources on (1) and (3)? I think you saying "poor" people is extremely simplistic. Are you talking about EVERYONE below a certain economic threshold? Or are you talking about the underemployed, undereducated? Those that are disabled? Mentally ill? Injured veterans? The old who had their pensions stolen and got back nothing or pennies on the dollar? Just curious what you actually are talking about. I think it's a bit ill-informed to just assume that the poor are low-IQ and lazy, as (1) and (3) pretty clearly show. I THINK with (3) you're talking about what the British call the "dole-hole" but i'm not sure what you mean by "massive wealth transfers". I hope you don't mean the paltry un-employment or benefits checks that these people receive. I'm not trying to be combative, just trying to cover my bases here. Thanks.
Really great stuff here.
Tom Hanks is going to be in a film about Timothy D. Terrell in 2024. P.S. I'm from the future. Pro-Tip Buy VTI's.
Capitalism doesn't exist on the largest macro scales. Corporatism is what we have, an idea with roots in fascism. Capitalistic behavior exists in certain areas, but the overarching paradigm is of state control of every aspect of human behavior, through economic planning and regulation. Government is antithetical to capitalism, and large government is especially antithetical.
^ That's perfectly accurate.
true But the corporations (Capitalists) have got they taxes reduced by influencing the government .This has given them advantage over the independent business owner.
@@redwater4778 the proper (and capitalistic) solution is to reduce taxes on the smaller businesses just the same. If a corporation bribes government for lower taxes, only for themselves, and *Also to Keep them At Least as high for the smaller businesses, if not higher* (in order to cut competition from them), that is not capitalism, it is the opposite. That is government intervention - aka Collectivism - coercively creating an artificial disparity that would not otherwise exist. That's cronyism. I don't even like calling cronyism "crony capitalism" because it's outright Not capitalism. It is coercive collectivism. Because it is central control and violent influence over the economy. Calling that capitalism just because it's a *corporation* doing this sort of lobbying, is like if hypothetically, say, Karl Marx had gone against his socialist label, and became a fat cat CEO arguing for free trade and private property markets, and you saw this, and you said "that must be Marxian Communism, because he's the communist Marx himself". That's bullshit. It's antithesis to it. Same with these corporations. That's not an example of a system of capitalism, but its opposite.
I thought this guy was Tom Hanks
nice comparison to regulated building and worst solviet blocks, solviet building were not regulated but centrally planned. A huge difference between regulation and licencing private and centrally planned where there is nobody who would regulate.
Good speaker!
THANK YOU
Damn merica, you gotta step up your freedom game
*looks down from Canada
I don't like saying "crony Capitalism" because it's conceding linguistic ground to Socialists. It's Corporatism and demonstrably not Capitalism.
capitalism
/ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Corporations are public, not private, and when the state treats them as an individual under the law it commits the same fallacy of misplaced concreteness that all collectivist regimes commit... and this is barely even touching on the cronyism that is the only accurate part of the phrase "crony Capitalism".
Tom Hanks moment
please take a page from the australian philosophy.
How can you defend the idea that markets are not subject to resource constraints. 😂
A flaw in capitalism is that it works well in eliminating excess and inefficient businesses but it is not allowed to do this with labor.
cool
What gets me most about this is this idea "these people who are talking crap about capitalism are not properly defining capitalism" and then many other videos i've seen from Mises go on and do the same thing with Socialism or Communism. I think what the people who aren't "properly defining capitalism" are talking about is the system of capitalism as we see it successfully implemented currently in the markets that are considered capitalist. I'm not a critic of capitalism. I tend to like capitalism, when it drives innovation or even iterative development. But I think it can't be a completely free market. A system that sees profit as it's only motive will find a way to maximize finding/getting that profit, without any regard to ethics or morality. The government is there to serve as the representative of the people, the only entity powerful enough to hold these large corporations to heel if they are operating not in the best interest of the people. Sure- allow the market to operate with a profit motive, but do not look away for a minute, because it will have stolen your wallet and impregnated your wife without you watching it. The government also needs to be transparent to be kept from falling down a similar path. All human endeavors need to be kept honest- checks and balances are absolutely essential.
The point about earning less to get more public services is bunk. About 99% on that level of income never do the math. Earning is directly related to how much your boss tells you to work when you are in a minimum income situation. Having a cell phone is also not a form of wealth. People get cell phone for a few dollars at a swap meet and get a few minutes at a time. Why so they can call 911 to save theirs or another life mostly. Ceos may run bit companies well. But buying back stock to make it look like it went up in value is half the game.
You could not be more wrong about people not doing the math on whether or not they lose benefits based on income. They pay more attention to it than people in upper incomes. Over the years I have had numerous employees go so far as to ask me to take back pay raises because it cost them more in benefits than the gain in income. Many have asked if I could adjust or hide things like tips and bonuses because making more cost them when they went to the doctors' office..
And yes a secondary market for used cell phones, just like used cars, is a sign of wealth. I just bought a used car with more bells and whistles than I could imagine because there is enough wealth to make it possible for someone to trade in a perfectly good car long before it's useful life is over. I benefited from the wealth and it benefited me.
Stock buybacks put money back into the economy where it can be put to better use than the company can put it too. If the company had a better use for the money they would put it there.
Your earnings are not directly effected by how much your boss tells you can work unless you are an employee who refuses to more from your current job or start your own business 🙄
A lackluster speaker, but stick with it, he gets better.
At 8:30 he says: ''Today, high earners tend to marry other high earners, if you go back several decades you will find more cases where a high income earner married a low income earner and that's why we have more inequality today.'' Wow, that kind of argument definitively requires a lot of creativity but very little connection to reality... Is he fucking making fun of us? I'm out of here.
Nobody learns by running away!
Oh, it's just that I tend to take my learning from arguments that make sense, exclusively. Here's one lesson you might like: Capitalism as it is being practiced today is only good if you were born on the right side of it, go ask those who go to sleep almost every night on an empty stomach what they think of it. Here's another one: We are now back to nineteenth century levels in wage disparities, we are regressing. And one last: Are you aware that you owe your 8 hours a day 5 days only work week to anti-predatory capitalism unions? No? Ahhh, go back to school little one and in the meantime, try to avoid talks that make no sense, you'd be much better off.
Have a lovely day🌹
Hello Happy Camper,
I think it’s not so much that you like to learn from ideas that make sense it’s more that you don’t like your preconceived notions about capitalism being challenged. Your anecdotes about poverty or hunger and the work week are not new to me.
There is no inherent conflict between a growing economy and certain provisions or social safety net for the truly indigent. But generally, paying the able-bodied not to work helps no one.
The idea that no one can make it unless they’re born on the right side is a demonstratively false assertion. If you have the time or inclination I highly recommend reading Thomas Sowell’s
“A Conflict of Visions” or “ The Vision of the Anointed”.
Regards,
Capitalist Pig
Ha ha ha, me? A capitalist pig? Come on, be serious a little now. If you're interested in what The Libertarian Platform really was in 1980 and still is today, watch this it's only 4 minutes. Have fun and farewell, little one.
ua-cam.com/video/QKGwdXFm6hQ/v-deo.html
Oh boy, I signed it capitalist pig silly. Pay attention to details this might solve some of your issues with free markets. Though I'm not 100% in there camp , I'm quite familiar with the Libertarian viewpoint on economic issues. But thanks anyway.
homeless have cellphones .= progress and innovation.,, Give me a fucken break
their is no other kind of capitalism but crony, (well their is putting the corporate organizations in charge, so they use coercive force directly, as Mises argued for) A simple challenge: work for the worst wages, with the longest hours you want to be legal, for 10 years and report back (for a mises professor that would be $0 an hour for 168 hour weeks) accepting no charity or hand outs.
That is incorrect every single time you buy anything you have engaged in capitalism willingly. Nobody would work for $0 for 168 hours a week for 10 years..... They would just get a different job or start up there own company 🙄
That would be gulag labour hours.
Why were you asked to speak?
What gets me most about this is this idea "these people who are talking crap about capitalism are not properly defining capitalism" and then many other videos i've seen from Mises go on and do the same thing with Socialism or Communism. I think what the people who aren't "properly defining capitalism" are talking about is the system of capitalism as we see it successfully implemented currently in the markets that are considered capitalist. I'm not a critic of capitalism. I tend to like capitalism, when it drives innovation or even iterative development. But I think it can't be a completely free market. A system that sees profit as it's only motive will find a way to maximize finding/getting that profit, without any regard to ethics or morality. The government is there to serve as the representative of the people, the only entity powerful enough to hold these large corporations to heel if they are operating not in the best interest of the people. Sure- allow the market to operate with a profit motive, but do not look away for a minute, because it will have stolen your wallet and impregnated your wife without you watching it. The government also needs to be transparent to be kept from falling down a similar path. All human endeavors need to be kept honest- checks and balances are absolutely essential.
Openness naturally has to come before the checks and balances. Noone can comprehensively predict what the future will bring. If everyone's activities are in the public eye, then checks and balances can be implemented if the need arises.
There is nothing wrong with greed being a motivator of innovation.
There is a need for affordable housing. Someone designed a machine that 3D prints affordable houses and the profit margin is HUGE.
Still a win win.
The problems arise from corruption and that can be minimized through disclosure.